JimC Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) I suppose the Drawing register does not say "All built with high sides". Well it does, or nearly so, ("Well Tanks with High Sides") but in handwriting and so on that makes me confident it was added at least ten years later and possibly a lot more. I have a gut feeling that some of the annotations in the book are a lot later, and maybe not even official GWR/WR additions. The register entry for the A112s has several scribbled additions that are not there for any other lots, and in handwriting that obviously doesn't match contemporary entries. Another is a list "Originally fitted to following engs in numerical order:- 4088, 4091 4092, 4008, 4083, 4087, 4016, 4032, 4019, 4056". Its difficult to see what possible use that information was to the GWR, and it appears for no other lots. I don't think we need despair too much about the lack of drawings if we are not seeking to manufacture new components to exact specification. The general arrangement drawings tell us an awful lot about the individual components. I've kinda got into this (can you tell!) and I think I'm going to try and write up the variations of the tenders in some detail, maybe for a book(let), maybe for web pages, it depends how it works out. But I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to draw recognisable sketches for the major components and be able to produce a timeline of what was introduced when so it will be possible to identify what one is looking at and produce a mix and match chart. I've found, for instance, that the A112s had a new spring design - unsurprising - but that the NRM has a drawing for it which they've published in large enough detail to redraw, and that that spring was used for the next two or three lots until they were redesigned again. So here's a 71534 spring. There was a new design for lot A117 and again for A120. The A120 spring was used until the end, including on the Hawksworth tenders, so that will be the very familiar flat design, and I'm happy I'll be able to get a good go at that from GA drawings. The A117 spring I haven't looked at yet, but hopefully the A118 GA will give some detail. The downside is that I see myself spending a fortune on NRM drawings if I'm not careful. [Later - and here's 79936 for A117 from the A118 GA. You can see the new spring is different in about every way. [Later still ] 89792 for Lot A120 on doesn't appear to be superficially different from 79936. The spring hangers are different though, the later design has short spring hangers. I've yet to research when that change was made. Edited March 15, 2018 by JimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Richard (Wenrash) - you have a couple of PMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Hi All, There is a GWR tender type that has just been manufactured that we can now tick of the list... The one behind the Heljan 47XX is an ex King Collett 4,000 gallon unit with the plated over twin side water filler holes and a new centre filler. I don’t know if this has been done before in model form. All the best, Castle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Can anyone in the know tell me whether the tender seen here: https://www.dccsupplies.com/item-p-113720/grange-n-gauge-lined-br-green-late-crest-tender-body-fully-d.htm represents a 4000 gallon tender variant. I don't recall ever seeing one without a tender dome. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I don't recall ever seeing one without a tender dome. The consequence of not having a dome would be somewhat spectacular, not to mention counter-productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 81C Posted October 25, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2018 It looks like Dapol have scanned a preseved tender with an oddball modification I though only DJM or Oxford rail would make that sort of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) It looks like Dapol have scanned a preseved tender with an oddball modification I though only DJM or Oxford rail would make that sort of error. Oh well, I can I suppose 3D-print a dome to go on the tender without too much bother. Given that Dapol Halls and Granges also have a boiler that is too small (they stretched their Manor artwork even though they have a correct Swindon No.1 on their 38XX) your deference for the efficacy of their prototype research is somewhat generous. Or perhaps this is intentionally the model of a tender from a preserved locos. I can imagine that the dome has become superfluous on preserved lines with no water troughs. Other photos online do show Dapol Granges with 4000 gallon tenders complete with dome. Chris Edited October 25, 2018 by Chris Higgs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 The consequence of not having a dome would be somewhat spectacular, not to mention counter-productive. There only needs to be a tender dome if there is an operational scoop. You can see why some preserved tenders, especially with newly fabricated tanks, do not have a dome. The design is not always the same as the original as coal capacity is often altered with replacement tender tanks. Scanning preserve tenders -fine if you use a set of plans with it. Doesn't explain why my latest Hornby castle was missing a scoop! Mike Wiltshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 A number of preserved tenders have had their scoop gear, wayshafts and scoop handles removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 81C Posted October 25, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2018 There only needs to be a tender dome if there is an operational scoop. You can see why some preserved tenders, especially with newly fabricated tanks, do not have a dome. The design is not always the same as the original as coal capacity is often altered with replacement tender tanks. Scanning preserve tenders -fine if you use a set of plans with it. Doesn't explain why my latest Hornby castle was missing a scoop! Mike Wiltshire Mine has too but and I didn't notice as it's not been through the shop for oiling and the like looks as if a Star might be having a tender swop and a spare mainline tender loosing it's scoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steamport Southport Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Is the dome a separate item not fitted to the spare body? The finished model has a dome. https://www.hattons.co.uk/74869/Dapol_2S_019_003D_Class_6800_4_6_0_6809_Burchlere_Grange_in_BR_lined_black_with_early_emblem_DCC_F/StockDetail.aspx Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Is the dome a separate item not fitted to the spare body? The finished model has a dome. https://www.hattons.co.uk/74869/Dapol_2S_019_003D_Class_6800_4_6_0_6809_Burchlere_Grange_in_BR_lined_black_with_early_emblem_DCC_F/StockDetail.aspx Jason Well, some of them have a dome. Perhaps there is one representing a loco runnning 'in preservation' that does not. Or the tender body for sale is part of a batch that were made with an error. At 6.00 for a painted body I think I'll go for it and get a dome printed up. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wenrash Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 It is surprising that there being Two drawings published, Three if you include the A113 Drawing, and still there are errors! I am not sure what Castle's post is saying. Attached is a copy from the Finney instructions which show the access/ inspection plates each side of the central filler. These are not usually modeled by the commercial suppliers. Is this what Castle means? Richard A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/27231336513/in/album-72157669537628532/ (mistakenly included in Brian's Mogul photo directory) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 It is surprising that there being Two drawings published, Three if you include the A113 Drawing, and still there are errors! I am not sure what Castle's post is saying. Attached is a copy from the Finney instructions which show the access/ inspection plates each side of the central filler. These are not usually modeled by the commercial suppliers. Great Western108.jpg Is this what Castle means? Richard A Hi Richard, Nope - those are not inspection hatches. The central filler is more than large enough to get into the tank of a 4,000 gallon tender and the baffles inside have holes large enough for a flexible person (not me!) to fit through and inspect / work on. The things shown are blanked of fillers from the early days of the 4,000 gallon tenders. All the best, Castle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wenrash Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Castle Hi, Have you seen this photograph? Take note of the Hall Tender! Comes from Great Western Journal No 48 Autumn 2003. I wondered why go to the expense of removing them. The original fillers were in a ledge that goes all the way across the tender. See Russell Vol 2 for a drawing of the original design. I bought a Hornby King and was surprised that they had modeled the A113 design correctly. Pity they had the wrong underframe! Richard A 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 What's the distance between Millbay and Cogload? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Hi Richard, That’s the one - twin fillers! As to why remove them? I don’t know but I will ask around and see if the knowledge is known so to speak! All the best, Castle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 The production of the early few 4000g tenders during the rollout of the water trough network in understandable, especially in the context of the high-prestige non-stop trains like the 1902 & 1903 Royal trains, the regular Plymouth non-stops, including the CRE (all via Bristol in those days of course), and the Fishguard specials. By 1905 however, the water trough network was substantially complete - Churchward 7 ton-coal 3500g units ruled the roost, and could cope. So it kind of begs an obvious question - why did Collett feel the need to move up to a 6-ton coal 4000g? (I am taking these coal capacities as stated on all the relevant Vintage Carriages Trust entries, but I'm not sure I really believe them!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ikks Posted October 31, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 31, 2018 Not a GWR fan, but this thread just shows what an incredible amount of knowledge exists here. Problem for me is, once I find a thread like this, I find it addictive, whatever the subject matter. Thank you all for this fascinating insight into GWR tenders! Rgds.........Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach bogie Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Hi Richard, That’s the one - twin fillers! As to why remove them? I don’t know but I will ask around and see if the knowledge is known so to speak! All the best, Castle Standardisation!!!!! One theory is drivers were highly skilled in pulling up in exactly the right spot in relation to water crane position. If all were in the centre with a standard..ish length tender on the larger classes, then the swing of the water crane would remain constant. By having the filler on the outer extremes of the tender, filling up may have not been so easy. Just a thought Mike Wiltshire 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium M.I.B Posted October 31, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 31, 2018 When overhead arms were used for fuel tanker loading in temporary fuel sites, the flexibility of the "sock" on the arm allowed more scope for the tanker driver to get "near enough". So the sock on a water crane would also provide enough "lee-way" to cover single or twin fillers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted October 31, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 31, 2018 What's the distance between Millbay and Cogload? About 110 miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 About 110 miles. Hmmm. Given that Exminster troughs didn't come on stream until July 1904, that means CoT and its 3000g tender in its run of a couple of months before had to make it as far as Creech until it could get its first fillup. Impressive. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted October 31, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 31, 2018 Hmmm. Given that Exminster troughs didn't come on stream until July 1904, that means CoT and its 3000g tender in its run of a couple of months before had to make it as far as Creech until it could get its first fillup. Impressive. I would hate too think of what might have happened if CoT, hadn't got a good pickup, as the tender must have been pretty nigh on dry, by then. Some impressive enginemanship, too make a run like that and use so little water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now